Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 7 - Evidence, October 21, 2016
HALIFAX, Friday, October 21, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day, at 9:28 a.m., to study the development of a strategy to facilitate the transport of crude oil to eastern Canadian refineries and to ports on the East and West coasts of Canada.
Senator Michael L. MacDonald (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: This morning the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications is continuing our study on the development of a strategy to facilitate the transport of crude oil to Eastern Canadian refineries and the ports on the East and West coasts of Canada. The study began last March with the objective of finding a better way to bring Canadian oil products to market.
I would like to introduce our first witnesses from the Assembly of First Nations, Regional Chief Morley Googoo, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia; from the Kwilmu'kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office, Twila Gaudet, Consultation Liaison Officer, Mi'kmaq Rights Initiative, and Melissa Nevin, Consultation Researcher, Mi'kmaq Rights Initiative; and from the Sipekne'katik James Michael, Solicitor, and Jennifer Copage, Consultation Coordinator.
We will begin with Ms. Copage, followed by Chief Googoo, and after the presentations the senators will have questions.
Jennifer Copage, Consultation Coordinator, Sipekne'katik: Good morning. I am Jennifer Copage, Consultation Coordinator on behalf of Sipekne'katik. My colleague is James Michael, legal counsel on behalf of Sipekne'katik.
I would like to acknowledge the Mi'kmaq territory we are in today and welcome you to the unceded traditional lands of the Mi'kmaq. Thank you to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications for the invitation to present.
Sipekne'katik is a Mi'kmaq community of about 2,600 members with about half of its members residing on reserve in Indian Brook. In addition to Indian Brook First Nation and Dodd's Lot in Hants County, Sipekne'katik also consists of Wallace Hills and Shubenacadie Grand Lake in Halifax County, and Pennal and New Ross reserve lands in Lunenburg County. In addition to unceded Aboriginal lands the band has several specific land claims throughout the province.
In March 2013 Sipekne'katik removed itself from the made in Nova Scotia process Mi'kmaq rights initiative and took over the lead in its own consultation and negotiation process. In January 2016 Sipekne'katik removed itself from the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs. Currently Sipekne'katik is working on developing a community based consultation process which reflects the values and principles of our membership.
I would like to express that due to the short notice of today's invitation to present to the panel it is difficult to properly address the topic because of capacity issues. Despite repeated requests the federal government has refused to provide contribution funding for the band to engage in consultation while the province contributes a modest amount. It is respectfully requested that we may provide a written submission at a future date. This will give us time to engage our membership in this extremely important topic.
It is clear from the case law that Sipekne'katik must be involved in any decisions related to crude oil transport. The potential for an adverse impact on rights and title exists regardless of whether these have been proven in court or asserted. The band rejects any attempt to place its consultation within in the same category as other stakeholders.
Section 35(1) of the Constitution affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights. This section requires that the Crown act honourably in this regard as pointed out in Haida. This duty to consult and accommodate Sipekne'katik interests is grounded in honour of the Crown and must be understood generously. Good faith is key to meaningful consultations whenever there is knowledge of the potential existence of an Aboriginal right and conduct that might adversely affect those rights.
The Crown must respect legal and constitutional limits when any contemplated action may have an adverse effect on rights. As a part of this the Crown cannot delay engaging in good faith and meaningful consultation. There must be room to avoid adverse impacts on rights and title, to minimize impacts or to accommodate the band's interests. Otherwise the honour of the Crown cannot be upheld since the process becomes a one-way street of simple notification as opposed to meaningful consultation. If there is an appearance or apprehension of a done deal before this process of consultation is fully engaged, then for all intents and purposes there was no consultation.
The Atlantic region may be forced soon to adjust their social assistance programs to mirror provincial rates and guidelines. Currently there is a pause on this. However, should this come to pass there will be more Mi'kmaq practising their rights to provide for themselves and family members on an increased level. This means more reliance on the natural resources of the land. Any proposed project would correspondingly have a heightened potential to have an adverse impact on more resources and on our people. Literally the potential to remove food from peoples' tables puts the context of consultation into urgent focus.
Given what is at stake, early, good faith, and meaningful consultations on any transportation infrastructure projects must become the new and firmly established process in which the Crown conducts itself.
In that regard, and given that the Mi'kmaq as well as other tribes span provincial borders, there must be a national strategy that incorporates regional and provincial realities. In the case of the Mi'kmaq there are bands and reserves in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec. The courts have applied the same legal requirements and tests broadly on a national level and any strategy of a national level needs to be reflective of this.
A national strategy should include best practices of how to avoid misunderstandings, challenges and conflicts. One key element would be early and ongoing meaningful consultations whenever a potential exists that rights and title may be adversely impacted. The ability for bands to engage in a two-way street of consultation will very much be dependent on the resources and capacity that different bands have as well as their own unique goals and priorities.
Sipekne'katik is entitled to deep consultation and accommodation on this issue. Sipekne'katik is hopeful that the honour of the Crown will be upheld and Sipekne'katik is invited to submit a written submission at a later date. Thank you.
Regional Chief Morley Googoo, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, Assembly of First Nation: Good morning Mr. Chair, members of the committee and my fellow colleagues. I welcome you to Mi'kmaq, the unceded Mi'kmaq territory. I am glad to have the opportunity to share some knowledge, information and wisdom from our elders, our chiefs, and everyone. I am glad to have the opportunity to appear here today to discuss the concerns on the need for a national strategy to facilitate the transport of crude oil.
I also want to make you aware that our chiefs in Nova Scotia just met with Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould. We are excited with the Prime Minister's vision of nation to nation talks. Of course in 150 years the nation to nation concept hasn't been much more than an aspirational desire on our part, so this is a great opportunity for us to be here this morning to be part of a process. It is more important for us to get it right because of the wish and the mandate letters the Prime Minister has given to all his cabinet members to improve indigenous relationships. I am glad to be here to present in this regard.
I am here in my role as regional chief. I represent Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Also my portfolio at a national level includes the TRC Calls to Action, youth, sports, recreation, language, culture and arts. I also sit on the management committee. I represent all the chiefs in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I am also a member of the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs that represents 11of the 13 communities in Nova Scotia. Together we provide directions to our technicians at Kwilmu'kw Maw-klusuaq, which is very hard to pronounce but means seeking consensus. It is also called our Mi'kmaq rights initiative.
Today I am joined by two representatives of our KMK office, the Kwilmu'kw Maw-klusuaq office, Twila Gaudet, and our Director of Consultation, Melissa Nevin, one of our consultation researchers.
We are proud to say that in Nova Scotia we have a process that is unique anywhere in Canada. The Mi'kmaq has existing treaties recognized by section 35 of the Constitution and our process reflects that. The made in Nova Scotia process respects our rights and looks at the best ways to implement Aboriginal and treaty rights.
The three parties — Nova Scotia, Canada and the Mi'kmaq — as part of the made in Nova Scotia process have also agreed to follow consultation terms of reference that clearly lay out a process for Crown consultation with the Mi'kmaq.
The terms of reference for the Mi'kmaq /Nova Scotia /Canada consultation process were ratified in August 31, 2010. Through it we assess possible infringements in the Crown's decisions or action, minimize impacts on Mi'kmaq rights and title, and accommodate the Mi'kmaq.
In 2008 the Canadian government advised all of its departments that consultation was most effective when initiated as early as possible before decisions are being made. Beyond that the duty to consult and accommodate First Nations when the Crown's decisions may have an impact on Aboriginal and treaty rights has been recognized by the highest courts in Canada.
We say this to stress the importance of Crown consultation. This is the only way to facilitate the involvement of indigenous peoples in decisions related to crude oil transport. Impacts on Aboriginal rights and title need to be addressed and meaningful consultation and accommodation of First Nations people, our indigenous people, must occur.
Our consultation team has been calling on consultation with Natural Resources Canada when regulatory decisions are being made with the National Energy Board. We recognize that the National Energy Board does not have the duty to consult even though it is the entity of the Crown. Beyond that we have found that the NEB process is difficult to navigate and comes with its own set of challenges.
We have also continued to stress in our consultation discussions that legislative timeframes are restrictive and should allow adequate time for a meaningful Crown to Mi'kmaq consultations. We have seen in the past omnibus bills being pushed through the legislative process, with no requests for consultation, let alone any meaningful dialogue with the First Nations people of Canada before these bills are being brought forth.
One of questions being asked of witnesses today is how to improve public confidence in the pipeline review process. We must say from a First Nations perspective that will be a major challenge. The Mi'kmaq have never surrendered, ceded or sold the Aboriginal title to any lands and resources. The lands, waters and resources are tied to who we are. As the first people of these lands we are incredibly passionate about what happens in our traditional territory. Our people have concerns about the impacts of development on environmental protections and on resource management not only in Nova Scotia but across the country.
Our community members are vocal just as the First Nations voice has been all across the country. The priority of all indigenous people is to protect the lands and resources that have sustained us since time immemorial.
By conducting research we have found that in the past six years there have been 14 incidents of pipeline leaks that are labelled by the NEB as causing adverse environmental effects and to date many are still listed as having an unknown amount of oil leaked. Seven of these incidents were in 2015 alone.
In July this year a Husky Energy pipeline in Saskatchewan leaked up to 250,000 litres of oil into a river. Months later this spill has yet to be fully cleaned up. Most recently a spill occurred two weeks ago in northern Alberta and covered an area of three hectares including wetlands. Wetland areas are significant for both environmental and traditional use purposes and the destruction of these areas is unacceptable. Wetlands are important for their environmental, ecological and social aspects and they cannot be replicated from a biological perspective.
It is clear that the transportation of oil puts the environment at risk. That is a fact. When spills happen who suffers? We all do. We also have to wonder how many spills happen that are not being reported. It is hard to improve public confidence in an industry and a process that is clearly flawed.
As an example, Apache Canada Ltd. pleaded guilty this year to two counts of failing to properly operate its pipelines after multiple spills on its network. Apache admitted in court that it had installed the wrong size of pressure valves on the pipeline and that they did not properly review the reports on whether or not these valves were properly working.
Clearly the fines that these multi-billion dollar companies are being handed down through the courts are inadequate deterrents. In order for there to be any level of public confidence in pipelines and a review process, and that is what we want as well, there needs to be a major overhaul of the current checkboxes that proponents meet.
First and foremost, all and every effort needs to be made to prevent leaks. Prevention is the only way forward. There needs to be rigorous environmental monitoring. Spill prevention plans must be a requirement and effective emergency management measures need to be put into place before any work is done.
Pipelines that are older are at risk of an accident and should be replaced. It should be mandatory that pipeline leaks be fixed immediately. It is clear that there also needs to be better public communication and public education, not one that is driven solely by the proponent. Canada must be invested and there needs to be evidence of that.
Canada also needs to work to make the process clear and transparent when granting approvals for infrastructure processes, projects and pipelines. Citizens must be involved. One way to do this is to create a new process for the selection of hearing committees and panels, one that includes indigenous peoples.
There are different perspectives across Canada and the various points of view need to be heard, recognized and acknowledged. These decisions cannot be one sided anymore. We see the uprising that can happen when the general public is not informed and included.
There must be a more balanced public process. This is important for all Canadians. Clearly a national strategy is needed and must include a number of very important items. As a country we need to look into the safe transportation of crude oil. Although we recognize that pipelines have a lower spill incident rate, a pipeline oil spill can have severe and long lasting impacts on the environment and regional economy. Oil spills can be devastating as we know. We can never truly recuperate and bring the environment back to its original pristine state. There must be a way that we can strive to see that zero spills occur. This can only be done through proper infrastructure and constant monitoring.
A risk assessment needs to be done on each mode of transportation that is to be used to identify gaps and possible improvements. We are all too aware of the pressing need for the oil industry in Canada, but there also needs to be a way to conduct business safely.
We must consider the environmental and ecological impacts of our decisions today and how they can affect the next seven generations. In a national strategy it is essential that we look at all the long-term human health impacts of these decisions.
Both the environment and the health of our people are crucial to the way we view any work being done in Canada. For far too long, decisions have been made for indigenous communities to the detriment of generations of our people. Safe drinking water and a pollution-free environment should not be things that we have to fight for every day in Canada but they are. We have the power to stop that.
Even with the best equipment and the best training things happen and will go wrong. We need to trust that everything is being done that can be done to best prevent them. In Nova Scotia this needs to be done in collaboration with the Mi'kmaq. We have a role to fulfill.
The protection of our rights is paramount and it has been since the day our treaties were signed. This is why we have concerns with social licences. Social licences do not protect our rights. Any safeguarding of rights and title will always be the priority of the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs and all the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia.
We hope that with today's presentation you recognize how strongly rooted our concerns are in the traditions, lives and culture of our people.
We hold the role of stewards of the environment today and will continue to hold it in future generations. On behalf of the Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs I am glad to have had the opportunity to share our concerns.
On a closing note I emphasize the importance of our work here and moving forward. The lack of success puts our peoples in harm's way. This is a time when Canada is attempting to do reconciliation. Our country wants development. Our people want to get out of poverty. We are not included. We want transparency. We should be part of the regulatory and monetary systems. Our people and other Canadians will be standing in the frontlines, clashing and damaging relationships. In some cases there will be harm and violence and bad reconciliation efforts.
I ask that we take all of this into consideration. Canada is approaching its 150th birthday. We should look at our inclusion in the regulatory environmental processes to ensure trust of our people all across Canada. Thank you.
Senator Mercer: Thank you all for being here. We appreciate your time and your comment about not having enough time. A written submission would be welcome. Don't hesitate to do that via the clerk of the committee for it to be circulated to us all.
Ms. Copage: Thank you.
Senator Mercer: Chief Googoo, thank you for your presentation. I was impressed that while you touched on some negative issues in your presentation you were also positive in the context that the people involved in this project need to sit down with the Mi'kmaq people and have a practical, honest and open conversation.
One of my criticisms of TransCanada, a company that builds pipelines, is that it is always late to the dance. It always shows up a little late to talk to people. Relationships are not built overnight; it has taken centuries to build relationships. It is important. We have heard that and have relayed that to the representatives of the pipeline company, but we don't speak on their behalf of course.
You talked about jobs and you talked about poverty. If I can interpret what you have said because I want to be clear when I walk away from the table today, you are not saying no to pipelines. You are saying that proper consultation, proper protection, proper prevention, proper emergency response provisions and some employment opportunities could all lead to some positive relationships between the Mi'kmaq people and those wanting to build the pipeline.
Mr. Googoo: I thank you for that very interesting question and comment. I attended a community event a couple of weeks ago and I sat beside a woman who was my age and a mother. She talked about protest and natural gas projects. She asked me where I stood. I said I had to understand and after I spoke to her she agreed. I said it was important to recognize that all of the groups in my view had three points of view.
One group says no to development, no matter what. There is another group that is not against development but says there must be proper consultation. What is being offered is nowhere close to being included to our satisfaction so they say they will stand with the first group of no, no matter what because nobody is listening. Then there are the pro- development groups who are more lenient but also perceived by the two other groups as selling out.
The only way to fix that is through reconciliation and education so that the public of Canada as well knows that we have rights. We are not just protestors. We don't want to stop any kind of development. It is a good first step for children who are starting to learn about our culture, where we come from and the poverty in our communities. It is important for all other Canadians to recognize how our rights are tied to the land.
Public education in Canada is important as is the accommodation of companies. This is not rocket science if we simplify it properly. Together we could create a win-win situation. Without those efforts, whether they are regulations, policies or new laws being put in place, we are never going to get there. This top-down approach and approvals without our input have to change.
Senator Mercer: I am trying to be clear so that I understand when I go away from the table. You described three possible options. I am interpreting and I want to make sure that I am correct in my interpreting that you are in that second group as opposed to the first group. If consultation does not take place then you are back in the first group as opposed to being in the second. Is that correct?
Mr. Googoo: Yes.
Senator Mercer: I understand it clearly.
Senator Greene: First I congratulate you on your very balanced, even, open and honest presentation. I agree with absolutely all of it.
Do you have any specific recommendations regarding how Mi'kmaq could participate in the economic benefits of a proposal like this one?
Mr. Googoo: I will answer and I will pass it to my two colleagues if they want to comment. When that happens, consultation and inclusion in the project should be as soon as possible. That requires trust. We will not have a spy in there to relay the whole message when we are trying to work together.
We understand Canada needs the resources but we feel those are our resources too. We don't want to continue to be looked upon or frowned upon as a taxpayer burden when we feel the resources in our land are allowing Canada to be prosperous. In no way, shape or form should our indigenous communities be at the state they are in. There should be more transparency and inclusion from the start. The National Energy Board and other indigenous development committees being consulted when projects anywhere are to be started with the federal government and even permits at early stages can buy some trust.
We don't want a pin drop of jobs as an extra budget line item just to make sure we have been accommodated. We need our people to have as equal opportunities at meaningful jobs as other Canadians for us to get out of poverty. As the national chief says, we have to narrow the gap. It wasn't our choice where First Nation reserves were located. We need some economic development solutions to get everybody out of poverty
We should be partners in Canada so that we have an opportunity to influence and to make sure opportunities are created for our youth. We have the fastest growing population. We also have the highest school dropout rates. If our kids know there are opportunities for a better life that they can achieve, opportunities that re open to them, it will have a domino effect. It will allow them to strive for better education. Their parents will push them more by saying, "Listen, I didn't have those opportunities; you do so please stay in school.'' Importantly, in my experience, school is boring unless you know what you want to be. You are going to take all the wrong courses. I am glad that community colleges opened up from the days of just university courses being funded. When people know what area of profession they may want to pursue, it is better for them to understand they need English, math or certain subjects to qualify for those types of work. Engagement in the early stages is crucial as is having us as a proper partner rather than a budget line item.
Twila Gaudet, Consultation Liaison Officer, Mi'kmaq Rights Initiative, Kwilmu'kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office: I will just add to Chief Googoo's comments in terms of stressing and reiterating the importance of early engagement. These large companies continue to benefit from extracting resources that First Nations and indigenous peoples should benefit from as long as it is done in a safe and sustainable way. I stress the importance of stricter regulations and rigorous environmental monitoring in collaboration with indigenous people.
Mr. Googoo: A thought just came to mind and you guys can tell me if you have been consulted. I watched the news last night and heard a senior Irving official talk about billions of dollars in investments and shipping crude oil and all that stuff from Saint John here and overseas. I am not sure what position the guy was in, but he said that there would be a pipeline being built. He made a statement like that without considering it. In the news he said Halifax was booming now and Alberta was not. He said there would be a lot of development here.
Those kinds of statements and comments, without inclusion of dialogue with us, predetermine what is going to happen. Those kinds of company and corporate education and cultural awareness of our goals are crucial because that set a tone that the permits and approvals are already ready. We need to be included in that stuff.
Senator Greene: I will ask you a hypothetical question. Let's suppose that 10 years from now the pipeline is built and has been in operation for a while. There have been no leaks. Everything is running really well and everybody is happy.
Are you happy? What does it look like for you 10 years from now? What benefits can you imagine receiving 10 years from now in a pipeline situation that is working really well?
Mr. Googoo: There are a couple things before we even get to the pipeline hypothetically. We would have had a lot more engagement and proper process where people are not triggered to be in the frontlines of the development.
Senator Greene: I understand.
Mr. Googoo: Help us help you, the leaders, to make the development happen because we want development happening. In 10 years' time we would have hopefully negotiated nation to nation agreements where we had a new fiscal relationship with the government and revenues are coming from different areas rather than just contribution agreements and program money to us. Canada perceives that we are using taxpayer money: "We are paying for all the Indians, their housing and all that stuff.''
When there is resource sharing, revenues happen. When our people are off social assistance and able to strive for a good quality of life, in 10 years' time investments in those resource sharing revenues can allow us to do more economic development and create more economic opportunities than just in the oil industry. Whether it be our money going into fishing and so forth, I would like to see a day when we come to that position.
I wanted to mention earlier that we also need to be more mindful of the communities in traditional hunting and fishing territories that are used now. Show us exactly if a state of emergency happened there because of a leak what kind of additional plans there are to protect our traditional areas that we use.
We had a rain flood in Cape Breton. I met with Mr. Goodale here in Halifax, but when he was walking in Sydney with one of the Cape Breton residents he said, "Don't worry; relief is on the way.'' They announced $10 million based on his walking.
In Eskasoni there are 4,600 people. The province was doing an assessment of Sydney, what damage was done and what they qualified for as a state of emergency, but our programs on the reserves do not have that same support structures to access. Eskasoni is only 35 minutes away. Goodale should have gone there right after and said, "I will be here for this First Nation community too.'' Those kinds of equalities have to have happen. It is the same with jobs and economic development.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I want to thank our guests this morning, and Grand Chief Googoo. As you know, our committee is not a decision-making committee. It's a committee that makes recommendations to the government. I hope we can do so with the same wisdom that you showed in your presentation. I want to congratulate you. I have a few questions for the Grand Chief.
I think you gave a good description of people's positions on both resource development and resource transportation. Some people are completely opposed. Some people are ready to make compromises, and some people are open to all forms of development. If I were to use your wisdom to unite those opposed to development with those open to all forms of it...We know that, even within your community, you don't all share the same views. Views also diverge at the provincial level. We see it in Quebec. There's more opposition in Quebec than in other provinces.
What strategy would you use to obtain a social licence for the project in terms of both resource development and resource transportation? Many people oppose the pipeline because they also oppose oil development. Many people associate the two functions, namely, development and transportation. What strategy would you use to unite the two groups?
[English]
Mr. Googoo: Thank you very much for that question. I really appreciate the thought. We are always going to have some people going in front no matter what, but the people in the middle say they would be for it if certain things were done.
I will give you the example of Muskrat Falls. By the time we had people hardline protesting in the frontlines it was quite apparent what could have been done by the company clearcutting more areas and addressing all the prior recommendations that have now come back haunt them. What forces our obligation is to stand by our people. There has to be a pause.
Instead of forcing through a process of blockades, police assistance and court orders for the next three to six months or sometimes a year, the time could be better spent to pause, sit back down, make recommendations and listen over again because something has been missed in the consultation process. If people do not have the opportunity to be heard they will take unrealistic measures to make sure their voices are heard.
Perhaps this Senate committee could make recommendations that when these kinds of situations happen, you or some regulatory body has to review them again to figure out if they are valid, legitimate concerns without going to court junctions and all that stuff. At that point the company feels they can bully their way through. They can use the police, which does real damage to not just the company but to the Crown, police services and relations.
Nothing is going to happen anyway other than people being put in jail, charges being laid and more bad public relations happening. They should push the pause button and sit down for somebody to review independently whether there were valid concerns.
Let's take measures to do that. If people feel they are being heard and accommodated I find we have a better success. At this point the way things are happening right now it is butting heads. I don't think it is a win for anybody. It puts the people who were open now in a bad relationship of not even interested in being open anymore, so much harm has been done. We want to prevent those kinds of situations occurring. That is the way we can get to a better win-win.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I'll ask you a question, Grand Chief Googoo. You may not have an answer, but I would like you to imagine that you have a crystal ball. We spoke a great deal this week, even in the other consultation meetings, about the social licence for the project. The granting of a social licence by all the possible partners seems to play a key role in ensuring the project runs smoothly. In terms of your community and your cousin communities, other Aboriginal communities, how would you assess the social licence for this type of project?
[English]
Mr. Googoo: I think the principles of even a social licence being issued cannot be ignored. They must be the core of granting any social licences. Remember, even if a social licence is in a certain area of indigenous people or communities benefiting, those rights collectively belong to everyone in the territory. That territory is sometimes not covered by the social licence. We must make sure that core principles are put on conditions for social licences as a crucial part to moving forward. If we don't do that or if we water it down in some way, you put yourself at risk that those will be turned out the door as well. That is my thought. Do you have any?
Ms. Gaudet: No, chief. You can't talk about social licences without talking about rights as you have just said. Oftentimes in the concept of social licences the proponent confuses acceptance with approval. That is certainly not what we are doing here. The dialogue needs to happen within the consultation process to assess those potential impacts on rights and to address them.
The Deputy Chair: Before we go to the second round I have a few questions I want to run by all of you. Please feel free to make a contribution if something comes to mind.
You talked about the NEB, Chief Googoo, and the way it does its mandate. I was under the impression that you felt the native communities were not consulted enough. I want to understand this to get a feel for how they do their work.
Did the native community down here present a petition to the NEB? Did they approach the NEB to make a presentation and were they rejected? I am just curious.
Ms. Gaudet: We did approach not as intervenor status because the NEB process is fairly judicial. Because we have terms of reference process in Nova Scotia the duty is with National Resources Canada. We did make application to provide a submission so we are preparing that submission to the NEB.
The Deputy Chair: All right, that is good. I guess in the same light we have had previous witnesses express concern about the opportunity for indigenous communities to participate in licensing and environmental assessments. I am wondering if you could give us an outline of what are some of the specific capacity issues facing indigenous communities in terms of their participation in the assessment processes.
What can the federal government do to improve the capacity of indigenous communities to participate in the assessment processes and to form partnerships in the development of the resource? I guess I can put this out there. Would direct indigenous representation on the National Energy Board be a good first step in the right direction?
Mr. Googoo: I will touch on a couple of things and then I will pass it to Twila if she wants to add some more. We need to utilize people in the sciences more. We do have capacity to do our own science and work on some of these projects.
Regulatory items such as drafting new regulations that pertain to indigenous rights and title and fishing have to be drafted by us together, not given to us later and saying this is what we think covers your concerns. We have to be at the table drafting that together.
There needs to be more engagement in partnerships with our economic teams to see what kinds of benefits can be created as early as possible in these projects and not as an afterthought. The challenge is that we have always been the afterthought and we won't actually be considered or accommodated unless some incident is threatening or has already happened. Then people want to come to the table and say, "We will give you this.'' That is not the new way of business we want to do.
The National Energy Board has had its challenges and is in the process of re-establishing trust. It is not for me to say all across Canada, but including indigenous people in that process and on the board would serve as some peace of mind that our representation is being properly considered.
We can't just be true partners in speeches. You can't come into a territory and feel good that you said you were glad to be in unceded Mi'kmaq territory or Algonquin territory and then not be part of any other resource development from that territory. It is kind walk the talk. I am very glad that some politicians are actually saying they want some more substance.
The Deputy Chair: I have one more question. Can you clarify this for me? I think you mentioned that you were representing 11 out of 13 groups. What about the other two? Who are the other two and why aren't they in the tent?
Mr. Googoo: I come here on behalf of the Assembly of Nova Scotia Chiefs so my speaking notes are based on the Assembly of Nova Scotia Chiefs. I actually represent 14 of the chiefs in Newfoundland and all chiefs here. We had an MP and chief summit on June 28 of this year in Ottawa. Two of the chiefs have pulled out of the KMK process because our process allows that if you are not comfortable with how we are proceeding you have every right to go it on your own. They have chosen that opportunity.
As a regional chief, just to let you know, I represent all of them. I am not tied to any organization. I am ex officio of all organizations so I know what issues are current and what chiefs are bringing up. Based on my speaking notes I am speaking on behalf of the assembly but as a regional chief I represent all of them.
Senator Mercer: Chief, you mentioned the Algonquin Nation. There was another story I saw in the paper the other day, and we all know this. When we go to work in Ottawa we go to work on traditional Algonquin land. Parliament Hill is on traditional Algonquin land. We understand that.
I would like to be positive about these things. You talked about unemployment. You talked about poverty. Those are two issues that go hand in hand. As we move down the road here opportunities may or may not present themselves. It could be too late to take advantage of things if things were to be approved and started to move.
Have you taken the initiative to consult with the Nova Scotia Community College with its many campuses around the province to see if there will be opportunities for training for young people from your communities? If the pipelines proceed and there are opportunities, it seems to me we wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to make sure that young people from your communities are involved in the negotiations and consultations between you and the companies because they must talk to you and that may be part of the process.
Mr. Googoo: I know in some areas community colleges have looked at some of those opportunities but there is certainly room for expansion of that. Another thing that is quite important is a gap. I will make this as an example from my community. I was chief prior in Waycobah First Nation for 19 years before being regional chief.
There was a gypsum mine probably 11 kilometres away from the reserve. I negotiated with the company that we would work toward 25 per cent employment of our community. If you look at the mine when you drive by you will see it is very close to the community. Even today when you drive there is no way that would happen, but the company at that time really took to the proper things. We had a trucking deal with guaranteed hired truck drivers and they guaranteed hired people at the gypsum mine. We also had Aboriginal procurement opportunities. If we had oil we could have sold it to the machinery.
Those opportunities were created in agreement. Basically the way I approached it at that time was that I told the company that if they wanted me as their ally there were people in the community who would object to the project and proposal, but I could sell it to the community if they could give me the substance to help and say that 15 families were working at this mine and company revenue was being put back into the community. If I don't have those kinds of things I will just stay out of it. When the Warrior Society in our community wants to go and talk to them that will be their problem. If they don't give me anything to help them then I can't sell it to my community members.
The thing that we missed was putting a person in place to measure each year if we were hitting that 25 per cent mark or not and if not, why and let's fix it. It is important for every project we put in place that we do not just say we will work toward 10 per cent or 100 jobs and then say it is not our problem that we couldn't fill them. We need to have somebody there to find out why they are not being filled and to take measures.
The Deputy Chair: Was training part of the issue?
Mr. Googoo: Yes, training was part of the issue, but also unfortunately in our case the mine was going down in production.
Senator Mercer: The reason I specifically mentioned the community college in my original question was that I recalled a story I tell across the country. Nova Scotians may recall this story when the government announced the shipbuilding contract for the Irving shipyard in Halifax.
That afternoon or the next day, I can't recall exactly when it was, the community college in Nova Scotia immediately started to re-examine its programs to see if they were offering programs that were complementary to the shipbuilding needs and indeed reinstituted a number of welding programs because there had been no great demand for new welders prior to that. Of course in building ships you need a lot of welders so they retooled the community college to accommodate that.
I am thinking that the earlier we have this consultation, the better it is going to be. If there is a commitment of whatever percentage or whatever number to employ people from your community on this project, hopefully it could be met by good consultation with the community college so that it could help your young people learn whatever skills they need to do the job.
The answer from a company that there weren't qualified people doesn't wash with me. If there aren't qualified people, go train people. There are lots of very bright and very capable young people in your community. I know that and it is our opportunity to make sure they have the proper training.
Mr. Googoo: For lack of a better word, I will call it an implementation officer for now. When we create those kinds of opportunities there is a culture of people, say in Halifax that are non-native and want to go work. When we create those opportunities we have people lined up. In the culture of the communities we are not used to those many opportunities opening up at once. There are barriers for a person who has been on social assistance for a long time. Whether it is home care, whether it is transportation or whether it is even financial management, there are barriers for a person transitioning from a lifestyle of seasonal work all the way through to permanent work.
An implementation officer could identify some of those barriers and provide some support for those people to transition. Don't get me wrong. Some will make it but some will not. We need to know what other barriers they are facing. That is how we are going to make sure that we fulfill and accommodate the opportunities that are created for us.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Grand Chief Googoo, we heard from stakeholders this week. You're the Grand Chief of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. However, the pipeline stops in New Brunswick. We were advised this week to look at the possibility of having the final route reach Nova Scotia, specifically Port Hawkesbury. What's your position? I'll digress a bit from the licence aspect of your presentation and speak about the technical aspect. What's your position on the pipeline's final route?
[English]
Mr. Googoo: Definitely again early engagement and proper communication at the start if the plans are for that, but I will let Twila answer that as it is more in her area.
Ms. Gaudet: In terms of the current proposed route we know that there are concerns around increased marine traffic and shipping of the oil. Any potential spill could certainly have a devastating impact on our fisheries and those communities that certainly fish in that area.
We know that the majority of the concern right now is around any potential impact to marine or marine habitat, fish or fish habitat in the Bay of Fundy.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Let me get this straight. If there were two possible routes, one ending in Nova Scotia in the Strait of Canso and one ending in the Bay of Fundy, you would prefer the Strait of Canso?
[English]
Ms. Gaudet: We haven't contemplated a preference in terms of that route. We haven't given that any thought, but I do think that whether it was in Saint John or Port Hawkesbury the same concerns would remain around the shipping and any potential spill whether on land or in marine waters.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Michael, do you want to add something?
James Michael, Solicitor, Sipekne'katik: There are several ways to take the brief that Jennifer read. I guess for now we will take it as the fact that we answered everybody's questions and explained everything completely clearly to everybody. It is clearly understood, given the lack of an opportunity to discuss it.
I want to make some general comments and points. The band is doing its own consultation and soon to be doing its own negotiations. Millbrook is the other First Nation that has withdrawn from remaining in the Nova Scotia process. I am not sure if they withdrew from the assembly or not but the band has.
Mr. Googoo: They have.
Mr. Michael: In Sipekne'katik's position a lot of these things could be avoided if Canada simply followed the law. The law is that whenever there is a contemplated activity, a contemplated project, and there are potential rights that might have an adverse impact on our rights and title, you must have consultation.
Here in Nova Scotia there have been all kinds of examples where a project is done or is started and then the band will give a notification with tight timelines saying, "Do you want to engage in consultation?'' The shovels are already in the ground and the band is position is once the shovels are already in the ground there is no consultation. At least there is no meaningful consultation if there is no possibility to accommodate, to avoid or to minimize the potential adverse impact on our rights and title.
I heard some discussion earlier this morning about two or three different groups of people. People are for it. People are against it. There is also a third or fourth option and that is what the band is trying to do. We are trying to develop our own consultation process. Typically decision making has a trickle down effect when you have leadership making decisions about communal rights.
We are dealing with communal rights here, so who should have the say? It is the community. Maybe there are going to be goals and priorities that the community can come up with that say it is a showstopper and if it goes forward it is whatever, but that must come from the community and not after the fact.
I just talked about government coming to the table too late. Sometimes the Mi'kmaq ourselves come to the table too late because we say we have to look at the people. We want to do is involve the people from the get-go to avoid situations like this. If there is ongoing early, meaningful, two-way consultation a lot of these problems would be minimized.
I don't think Sipekne'katik has ever said it is against development. It is for protection of the environment and protection of our rights and title. It is respect of those rights and titles, preservation of the subject matters of our rights and titles for future generations and along with every other Nova Scotian and Canadian, a protection of the environment.
As far as getting social licences, I am not sure if the band is completely onboard with that because it seems like there has been a movement. I have read it in correspondence from the federal government and the provincial government. There seems to be a movement when they say we need to talk or we need to engage with Sipekne'katik and other shareholders, or they need to talk with the Mi'kmaq and other shareholders. It is almost like they are lumping us in there. The reason we are at the table is because we have been here for 10,000 years. In our opening statement we object to the province and in some cases the feds of trying to lump us together as other stakeholders because we are certainly not other stakeholders.
We appreciate the respect and support of stakeholders because a lot of them share the same goals and objectives as we do. At this point I don't think it is fair and it is sort of trivializes the constitutional rights that Sipekne'katik has when you say social licence unless I am misunderstanding it.
How do you improve the public confidence in the pipeline review process? In one word it is transparency. That is for anything. If deals, negotiations or discussions are behind closed doors you will not have transparency. This means you will have a lot of trouble in the street. I am oversimplifying things but at times I am sort of a simple man. No one likes to be left out of a discussion. If they are, they are going to assume the worse.
How do you facilitate the involvement of indigenous peoples in decision making? I Again it goes back to obey law, obey the Constitution of Canada. Whenever there is anything contemplated, talk to the First Nations that are to be impacted or may be impacted for it. Once those shovels are in the ground there is no meaningful consultation. If the government doesn't have the option of altering or moving, or even in some cases stopping, is that meaningful consultation or is that notification?
We have all touched on national strategy. The Mi'kmaq has five provinces and people in the state of Maine so we are going to need a national strategy. Some of them share the same treaties with us. They all have Aboriginal rights and title. The Supreme Court of Canada has a set of rules. You have to be here at the time of sovereignty. It has to be exclusive. I won't get into the legal details but that is applied nationally across the country.
In terms of a national energy strategy you will need something that applies nationally across the company that is going to have to be applied at the local or regional level. There may be some things that affect Sipekne'katik and that is it, but in many circumstances it may affect the neighbouring bands. It may impact the mainland. It may impact the province, the Atlantic or the region. Until you have a process that is reflective of the Mi'kmaq's way of looking at how they want to be consulted, you are always going to have conflict. At the very least you are going to have misunderstanding and suspicion that our rights and titles are not being given the due weight that the Supreme Court of Canada said they must be given. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: To respond to a few things that were brought up this morning, Ms. Copage, you mentioned you wanted to present us with a written submission and of course you can. We will be awaiting that and will make it part of our deliberations. We will incorporate it and digest it.
Ms. Copage: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I have been on the energy committee for five or six years with people who are pretty attuned to this stuff and want to do the right thing. One thing I have picked up over the years is that you avoid a lot of problems if you get people in the front door on the front end. It is not just a matter of saying here is your piece of the pie and throwing it at somebody and later on saying here is a bunch of money. All stakeholders are better off if people are engaged in the process on the front end.
I think your references to transparency are important. If you are engaged on the front end and you are part of the process the entire way, it is pretty hard to complain afterward that you weren't consulted. It is in everybody's best interests to take that approach and it is certainly one that I think we are aware of.
I want to mention one thing about the quarry outside of Whycocomagh. I remember when they were building that. Morley is right that 20 years later you see things you should have done. At the time when they were doing that I was a big advocate of putting a rail spur into that place. We realize now with the problem we are having keeping the rail line in Cape Breton that it would have been nice to have that material go over that rail line for the last 20 years in that we need volume. There is always stuff in retrospect we could do. We are trying to live and learn. Do you want to say something, chief, before we finish?
Mr. Googoo: I have one last comment on reconciliation which is my portfolio. We always acknowledge that we are in unceded Mi'kmaq territory so maybe in future Senate hearings like this one we will also have a Mi'kmaq flag on display and some of our elders present. We have some Mi'kmaq translators too. I think they would be more comfortable if they could present in their own language. That is a note I just wanted to leave you with.
The Deputy Chair: If we had people here who were more comfortable speaking Mi'kmaq and they needed a translator, I think we could accommodate them. We would do that. Thank you very much.
Honourable senators, I wish to welcome our next witness from the Atlantic Pilotage Authority of Canada, Captain Sean Griffiths, Chief Executive Officer.
Please begin your presentation, Captain Griffiths, and afterward the senators will have questions.
Captain Sean Griffiths, Chief Executive Officer, Atlantic Pilotage Authority Canada: If we open to page 1 of my presentation, it is just a brief overview of what the Atlantic Pilotage Authority actually does and who we are. We will start with the fact that we cover 17 compulsory pilotage areas throughout Atlantic Canada which essentially covers about 32,000 kilometres of coastline on this side of the country.
In the makeup of our pilot staff and resources you can see each of the ports is listed. For instance, on the right-hand side of that picture there are 13 pilots in eastern Newfoundland which covers three ports and 9 in Cape Breton where we have three ports. In some major districts such as Halifax and Saint John that covers the most of the assignments we have 13 pilots and 9 for each port.
This gives us a snapshot of the ports we cover. What it doesn't show here is a small sliver of Quebec. In effect we cover five provinces. There is a new facility opening up in the Bay of Chaleur which will be in our territory should it become compulsory as well. That is an overview of who we are and our areas.
How do pilots get on ships? It is the same today as it was many years ago. It is one of the safest ways to do it. You see how it is done here. We have rules, regulations, procedures, and mandatory safety equipment to ensure safe embarking and disembarking of the pilot in all our areas.
How does a pilot get on board a ship? We have very advanced robust pilot boats to carry our pilots to and from the boarding stations in all our areas. There are stable platforms and very effective in rough water. They are fast and highly maneuverable. There is integrated navigational equipment on board and have a very capable man-overboard system which you can see in the bottom right-hand corner of the page. Our current fleet is 9, with the intent to purchase two more to make it 11. We also operate 13 contracted boat services for Atlantic Canada on top of this.
Next is a snapshot from our last 10 years. We have conducted 90,600 pilotage assignments across Atlantic Canada, 99.93 per cent of which have been incident free and 99.1 per cent which have been on time for our customers. Of those that are not on time the average delay to our customers has been 2.2 hours on average. It is worth mentioning here that no pollutants have been released in the waterways and no injuries have occurred out of any of our incidents that we have had.
On the East Coast of Canada we have a full range of shipping. We have general cargo, container roll on and roll off and auto carrier typically seen here in Halifax. We have foreign going and domestic shuttle tankers throughout the coast as well. We have a very robust cruise season on the East Coast of Canada with the flag ship Port of Halifax. There are about 160 cruise ships per year and an active fleet of coastal tankers operating in all provinces along the coast in Atlantic Canada.
Just to give you an idea of some of the ships we do handle from the largest of VLCC or a very large crude carrier with about 2 million barrels of crude oil on board, to LNG carriers typically seen in Saint John, New Brunswick, and cruise ships. There are lots of them. They are getting bigger. There are coastal tankers as I mentioned earlier from different owners. Shuttle tankers from the offshore service our coast as well. Plenty of car carriers come into Halifax. The yachting season is picking up throughout Atlantic Canada. The bulk at Halifax is container ships and domestic and foreign going bulk carriers call our ports.
To go into the tanker component of our business we can focus on that. You can see from the next page that the graph clearly shows the bulk of our traffic in Atlantic Canada is tanker driven, just pushing 40 per cent. The revenue makes up about half of what we bring in at the authority. As the shipping goes to the right you can see container ships, general cargo, bulk carriers and so on making up the rest. By far it is obvious to see that tankers are the most of our callers. To break that down even more we could go into tanker assignments per compulsory pilotage area in last year alone.
Let's look at 2015. We have had a total of 3,200 tanker movements in Atlantic Canada. That represents just about 40 per cent of all our assignments. We have the most in Saint John at 1,116 movements, the second most up in Placentia Bay where there is an active transshipment terminal servicing the offshore in international markets of 882. We even have oil terminals in Louisport, Corner Brook, Stephenville, Sydney, Miramichi, Restigouche and Charlottetown. All of these are active movements for tankers.
To get a better idea of who carries the weight of tanker movements in Atlantic Canada you can see on the graph on the right and the numbers to the left that Saint John is clearly first as well, followed by Placentia Bay in second, and Halifax and Canso vying for the third and fourth spots. It is clear to see that there are many ports active in tanker traffic throughout Atlantic Canada to set the bar for the other ports.
I have some neat facts about the APA. We conduct pilotage assignments on crude oil tankers that carry about 2.3 million barrels of oil. That is again the VLCC type of ship we see in Saint John, New Brunswick, and the Strait of Canso. This equals to about 64 million tonnes or 458 million barrels of petroleum annually. We move the largest amount of oil on this coast than any other part of Canada.
We perform pilotage duties on tankers in 13 of the 17 ports across the Atlantic Canada. Assignments that occur in non-compulsory ports are usually on the way to a compulsory port. That is why we make a point of it there.
We spoke earlier about the four major areas of Placentia Bay, Saint John, Strait of Canso and Halifax. We broke it out into a pie chart on the right with numbers on the left. It is obvious to see that Placentia Bay's exclusive traffic is tankers. That is pretty well all we handle in there besides 21 general cargo ships that appear every once in a while.
In Saint John it is more of a 60 per cent split. The rest is followed by container ships, general cargo and so on. Again the majority of cargo shipping in and out of Saint John is tanker traffic. In the Strait of Canso it drifts a little below 50 per cent where most of the traffic is made up of other cargo ships such as gypsum, gravel and coal. The piece gets a bit smaller in Halifax, the most diverse port of all of Atlantic Canada cargo-wise where that piece of tanker traffic is a bit less.
In Atlantic Canada we have four major marine terminals that handle about 93 per cent of the petroleum volume. Irving Oil in Saint John can produce about 300 barrels a day which is about 40,500 tonnes of refined products. Canaport LNG in Saint John handled eight ships last year with a total capacity of just under 1 million cubic metres of liquefied natural gas.
In Placentia Bay we have the Newfoundland Transshipment Terminal or NTL in Whiffen Head. They can store about 3.3 million barrels or about half a million tonnes of crude oil in petroleum tanks in its storage. That is set to expand with Hibernia. That is where we have the Hebron project kicking in. The Come By Chance Refinery is up to or could be up to about 115,000 barrels a day of refined products destined for international and local markets.
We go back to the Strait of Canso where we have NuStar terminals. They can store about 7.5 million barrels or just over a million tonnes of crude oil and petroleum products in their storage tanks. They have about 60,000 barrels shipped annually or just over 8 million tonnes shipped in and out of there annually.
In Halifax we had the Refinery up until 2013 where they were producing about 90,000 barrels a day. It is now just a marine terminal and you can see it has changed landscape dramatically over the last five to seven years. Right next door to that Irving Oil has recently reactivated its marine terminal for storage fuel just this month, actually in October.
It is worth mentioning here that in Atlantic Canada commercial vessels are berthing in the heart of our biggest population centres and sailing through economically and ecologically important areas. We have right whale conservation areas. We have protected areas in Voisey Bay. We have commercial fishing activity year round throughout Atlantic Canada. It is a responsibility that we take very seriously.
Regarding risk mitigation and exercises we conduct table top exercises. There are two examples here. One is in Halifax where we work with marine stakeholders to help prepare in the event of an incident. The scenario studied was a container ship grounded near one of the bridges. It is a real-life exercise and the idea is to punch holes in your processes. Can you make them better? Can you improve them?
We did another one in Placentia Bay where we had a tanker going aground. We involved the stakeholders and the local community as well. They are realistic exercises that clearly demonstrate where actions or communications can be improved upon. Because of those exercises we were able to develop our incident management plan. That is a living document that is constantly reviewed and updated as we go on and the next table top exercise we will do the same.
There are two examples of how things can go wrong. I spoke of all the good things in the last year or so in 2015 regarding tanker movements, but on December 9, 2015, a crude oil carrier was coming from one of our customers in Placentia Bay. There was about 675,000 to 700,000 barrels of oil on board and it had a catastrophic rudder failure about 45 miles off the coast of Halifax. What I mean by catastrophic is that it lost its rudder. It had no steering whatsoever.
It was adrift essentially but what we did was work closely with the Port of Halifax, Atlantic Towing and the local offshore community. We were able to get that ship in safely, anchored in the Bedford Basin, and all cargo was transferred within four days to the sister vessel. This vessel made its way to the dock in Halifax, had a rudder repaired, and now she is sailing the world again like nothing ever happened.
Oddly enough just over a year later the British Merlin, a BP ship, suffered an engine failure. The turbo charger was not firing the way it should. She could only do a couple of knots. The weather was not friendly. Again the APA in conjunction with Atlantic Towing, the local tug company, our offshore communities and the Halifax Port Authority were able to get her in safely and secured. Repairs were made. The ship sailed and it is currently sailing today without issue.
In conclusion, I would just like to say that the authority has a proven record of safety and efficiency which contributes to the public confidence and trust in Canada's marine industry, particularly with its transportation of crude oil to eastern Canadian refineries, terminals and ports.
Senator Mercer: Captain Griffiths, thank you very much for being here. It is a great and welcome overview of the activities of marine pilots in the Atlantic region. You talked about sensitive areas and protected areas that you end up going through. I am curious about the Strait of Canso in particular. Are there any sensitive areas or protected areas in and around the Strait of Canso?
Capt. Griffiths: The commercial fishery is one of the main ones. It is a challenge because our pilots are bringing fairly large ships but their connection to the local community and knowing where the fishing grounds are make a huge difference in the safe shipping of these cargo ships, oil tankers and such.
With regards to actual protected areas and locations I am unaware of where they are today, but they are communicated to us regularly and our pilots know where they are.
Senator Mercer: You don't see any and don't have ongoing problems coming in and out of the Strait of Canso.
Capt. Griffiths: No.
Senator Mercer: I would like to switch over to Saint John, New Brunswick, for a moment. We know that there are protected areas or sensitive areas. It is the summer home of the right whale.
Capt. Griffiths: Yes.
Senator Mercer: It is not only a protected species. It is a huge species. Is your movement in and out of the Port of Saint John is as easy as your movement in and out of the Strait of Canso?
Capt. Griffiths: The pilotage distance in Saint John, New Brunswick, is about eight miles. From where the ship takes a pilot to where they would berth is typically eight or nine miles. If you draw a line between the tip of Nova Scotia up to say Grand Manan at the start of traffic separation scheme for instance, the distance the ship must transit to get to the boarding station in the Bay of Fundy without a pilot is about a 60-mile passage inward which takes them around the right whale conservation area, hopefully, to the pilot station where they board. Respectively for the Strait of Canso it is about a 45-mile passage and it is a 25-mile pilotage or so from the boarding station to the dock in the Strait of Canso. The pilotage in the strait is quite a bit longer. There are quite a few more turns. The Bay of Fundy is essentially a straight shot under control of VTS the entire way to the boarding station.
Senator Mercer: In the Strait of Canso you talked about the commercial fishery being the issue.
Capt. Griffiths: Yes.
Senator Mercer: You didn't mention the right whale in your comments about Saint John.
Capt. Griffiths: Right. The commercial fishery, we may as well state, exists in all components of Atlantic Canada. It is a challenge we deal with on a daily basis. There are no concerns from the pilotage point of view on commercial fishery because the connection to the community and to the stakeholders is very close.
Ships going through the Bay of Fundy to get to the pilotage station are not under pilotage but under the watchful eye of vessel traffic services or MCTS. They navigate through that conservation area. It is not a pilotage area. Nor can we enforce it. It is a good ways out of the Bay of Fundy.
Senator Mercer: It is out of your jurisdiction.
Capt. Griffiths: Yes, sir.
Senator Mercer: Let me ask a general question and then I will be more specific. Of the areas within your jurisdiction in Atlantic Canada which is the most difficult to pilot through?
Capt. Griffiths: I would have to say, sir, that they are all difficult. They all have their unique challenges, each and every one of them. The weather patterns for every district and port are different. The tidal heights are different. Prevailing circumstances, dock locations, facilities and infrastructure are all different. They are all unique. To pit one against the other as more challenging or difficult pilotage than the other, I can't really comment. They are all very challenging by nature in their different ways.
Senator Mercer: You mentioned tidal heights.
Capt. Griffiths: Yes, sir.
Senator Mercer: Tidal heights are not as big of a concern on the open Atlantic coast as it would be in the Bay of Fundy.
Capt. Griffiths: Right.
Senator Mercer: What challenges does that present to the pilots in the bay?
Capt. Griffiths: It is a very unique challenge, not to mention that the Saint John River empties out into Saint John harbour and eventually the Bay of Fundy, which is another challenge in itself.
In the spring of the year it can present a very difficult pilotage for our guys taking ships into the marine terminals or to the refinery. The tidal heights typically do not affect the outside terminals such as LNG or the monobuoy. It is not as dramatic because it is in such deep water.
Tidal heights are timed. Windows are created for ships to arrive and depart, to maximize the window for cargo operations or in Saint John's case for cruise operations. The more window you can have or the wider window you can for a ship to get in and out, the more time passengers are ashore spending money or the more time you can load and unload your cargo.
Senator Mercer: In Saint John when we were there the other day we were at the Irving refinery. We also had a look at the area where the ships dock. They don't dock in the traditional manner that we are used to in other ports. They dock more to an offshore buoy.
Captain Griffith: A monobuoy.
Senator Mercer: A monobuoy, yes. Does that present particular challenges for the pilots, especially with the changing tides and in the spring with the freshwater coming out of the Saint John River?
Capt. Griffiths: It can. That is correct, but the unique part of where a ship goes into Courtenay Bay at the refinery versus a ship going to the monobuoy is that there are many more people and stakeholders involved in a ship going to the monobuoy. There is a dedicated mooring master assigned to each of the jobs that come in. There is much more wiggle room, for lack of a better term, should there be a degree change here or there. Going into Courtenay Bay is a defined channel. It is dredged. You are limited on where you can go as with the inner harbour of Saint John, but with the monobuoy you have a little more flexibility in your approach. You can abort if you have to.
Senator Mercer: We have a large ship coming into the monobuoy at the Irving refinery. We have a catastrophic failure of power aboard the ship. What challenges does that present, particularly in the Bay of Fundy with the tides, with the Saint John River, and only being able to moor to a monobuoy?
Capt. Griffiths: First of all the challenges are the ships that go to the monobuoy are typically way larger than the ships that can go in the harbor, so you have a larger ship with more crude oil on board. There are tugs assisting in the works the entire time plus Saint John has the most robust tug fleet. I have seen quite a while because they support Canaport LNG. They are standby 24-7. That goes for both inner harbour and the monobuoy, I might add.
To your point on the challenges, if a large tanker adrift loses power approaching the monobuoy we have everything in place as much as possible to mitigate that risk such as pilots, mooring masters, tugs and vessel traffic services. It is all there ready to go.
Had the same thing happened to a smaller ship going into Saint John harbour or Courtenay Bay it is not as easy. You would have quite a bit more risk going in that way. The challenges presented to the monobuoy would be quite a bit less than going into the terminal, but you are dealing with bigger assets and more oil. If anything were to happen of course the impacts go up.
Senator Mercer: Let's take the same very large ship out of approaching the monobuoy at Irving in Saint John and move it to Port Hawkesbury. It is approaching the pier there too to load or unload. What would the challenges be in Port Hawkesbury if there were a catastrophic failure?
Capt. Griffiths: The approach to the docks or the terminal that it would go to would be more restrictive than a monobuoy would be. However there is plenty of water there. It is a very deep port.
Senator Mercer: It tends to be more restrictive but would it be easier?
Capt. Griffiths: I am not sure it would be any easier. It would be more forgiving going to a monobuoy than going alongside a dock. That always is the case in most respects. Taking a tanker alongside a dock in Chedabucto Bay or Port Hawkesbury has its challenges but it is the norm for us. The only monobuoy in Atlantic Canada is the Irving Oil Refinery monobuoy. Most of our tanker assignments are berthings and berthings are done alongside docks in congested waters. To say that one is harder than the other is a difficult statement. One has different challenges than the other. Wind and current play more along going alongside a dock than it would alongside a buoy. Tug resources play more of a role when you are going alongside a dock versus alongside a monobuoy.
Senator Mercer: I didn't detect it in Saint John when we were there or at least no one referred to the fact that on occasion you might have two ships in the stream ready to come to the monobuoy. Is that because it is managed so that there aren't two ships there at any one time?
Capt. Griffiths: Yes, there can't be two ships at the monobuoy at any one time.
Senator Mercer: There can't be two ships at the monobuoy at any one time. Let's again move to the Strait of Canso. We could have a ship at the dock and one in the stream.
Capt. Griffiths: At anchorage, yes, you could.
Senator Mercer: Or even more than one in the stream.
Capt. Griffiths: Yes, you could, but in the stream it is not far off the dock. The anchorage is a good stretch away from the dock, the same as the anchorage by the monobuoy.
Senator Mercer: I wasn't trying to create a traffic jam.
Capt. Griffiths: I understand.
Senator Mercer: I was just trying to see if we could have more than one ship ready to load or unload at each dock.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Mercer.
Senator Boisvenu?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I want to hear about your experience as a pilot. Did you pilot a ship? If so, where did you gain experience?
[English]
Capt. Griffiths: That is a very good question. I am not a pilot. I am a master mariner by trade. I have my experience from many different components of the marine industry from oil and gas to fibre optic cable lay, tug work, ROV subsea support, passenger ferry and cargo ship. I went to sea at 19 years old with the Canadian Coast Guard. I worked my way through the ranks of deckhand to master mariner when I was 30. I held command of a deep sea tug which was converted into a ROV support vessel. I held command of an offshore supply vessel in Nova Scotia. Then I came ashore and managed the offshore fleet for some time, obtained my MBA, and then switched to pilotage about two and a half years ago.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Where have you performed pilotage duties in Canada? Have you performed them in the Strait of Canso or the bay of Saint John? Do you know these places well?
[English]
Capt. Griffiths: I know the Strait of Canso more so than Saint John. I was navigation officer on several ships in the Strait of Canso either going in alone or even towing drill rigs behind us. My experience with the Strait of Canso is more so than my experience with the Saint John harbour and approaches. I have never sailed on a ship into Saint John.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Senator Mercer asked you whether one pilotage area is more difficult to move in than another. Which area is the most environmentally sensitive? Do you determine the area based on your experience or based on conversations you've had with pilots?
[English]
Capt. Griffiths: I believe the answer to that is a bit of both. On experiences from our pilots, we have 47 employee pilots across Atlantic Canada. We communicate regularly. We meet regularly. Their challenges are conveyed to us. Oftentimes our director of operations or I will go on assignment with pilots to see firsthand the challenges they face either coming from or going to a port.
On navigation to a pilotage area some can be more difficult than the other, but to the senator's point pilotage itself is a challenge and all areas represent their own unique challenges. It is unfair to say that one particular port of pilotage is more difficult than another.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I may be mistaken, but isn't the Bay of Fundy recognized by UNESCO as a very important and sensitive habitat that requires protection?
[English]
Capt. Griffiths: That's correct, as far as I know.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I'm somewhat familiar with the bay, because I have visited it as a tourist. I have also visited the Strait of Canso. I have difficulty when people say that the Bay of Fundy, from an environmental standpoint, is less risky than the Strait of Canso. I have difficulty believing it. I don't know whether my view is correct. What do you think?
[English]
Capt. Griffiths: I can give you an example, senator. Chedabucto Bay for pilotage is closed more often than Saint John, the reason being the prevailing winds of Atlantic Canada through the winter months are wide open at the entrance to Chedabucto Bay. To get a pilot on or off the Strait of Canso in the wintertime is a little more difficult and more challenging than one getting on and off in Saint John. Saint John and the Bay of Fundy has a protected area so the windage factor, or the fetch as we call it, for the amount of time wind can build up in an open sea is less in the Bay of Fundy than it would be in the Strait of Canso. Boarding a pilot can happen more often than not in Saint John but in Strait of Canso we are down on weather more so because of the open seaward to Chedabucto Bay.
The Deputy Chair: Before we go to a second round I have a few questions, Captain Griffiths. We talked about pilot related delays. I wonder if you could expand on those. What would be a typical pilot related delay?
Capt. Griffiths: The main delay for pilotage is that we don't have one. In Halifax during cruise season, for instance, we have several pilots and none of them take any time off. It is unwritten rule there are hardly any vacations granted through the months of September and October because it is our busy season. The model we work with is to have an adequate number of pilots for year-round operation. If we were to employ pilots to work regular hours for the months of September and October we would have to triple our numbers in some of our ports.
To create a fair and reasonable tariff for our customers we rely on overtime pilots to come back and expand on the busy periods. Sometimes we can't get the overtime pilots or they are late getting there. Where there are so many jobs on the books for one particular port we have exhausted all resources and a ship has to wait two or three hours for a pilot.
Other delays can include our staffing levels are too low and the customers want on-demand service such as Placentia Bay. Two years ago we had significant delays at Placentia Bay. We were undermanned in pilots. We have staffed, recruited and trained, and now there are very few delays compared to two years ago. That is why the average number of hours for the delay of a ship is 2.2 hours.
The Deputy Chair: Does the delay in the accessibility of pilots compromise safety?
Capt. Griffiths: No. A ship doesn't come in without a pilot. It will have to wait outside the area until it gets one. We have turned ships around before. They wait just outside the area. Jogging on location is the term. They will just jog at a minimum speed to wait for a pilot to board. The longer that takes, the more fuel they are burning, the more greenhouse gases they are emitting and the more at risk they are. It is in our best interest to get a pilot on time every time. We are dropping that number every year as we go.
The Deputy Chair: I want you to educate me on this stuff. Looking at the volume and the movement of vessels into the various ports in terms of substantially more tankers going into the Port of Saint John than any other port, they are both small tankers and very large tankers. The big ones are outside of course and the small ones go right in.
Capt. Griffiths: That's correct.
The Deputy Chair: One of the things brought to our attention in Saint John when we had our hearings there was the increase in tanker pressure with a new export facility. How would you describe the tanker pressure today in Saint John and what would it mean if there were another 500,000 or 600,000 a year?
Capt. Griffiths: That is an excellent question, senator. The tanker pressure today in both regions of the Saint John and the Strait of Canso is maintained with no problems. The staffing levels we have are current for the traffic we are seeing.
Let's say we had to set up a new facility in the Strait Canso or Saint John. We would not be able to do it today. The good thing is that none of these projects would start tomorrow. They would have many years lead time of two or three years before they would have first oil. That is enough time for us to hire, recruit and train pilots to be class A unlimited before these ships arrive.
That is the case for both, so neither district is manned today for an overnight increase. It takes time. It takes two to three years to train a pilot to be able to handle those ships. With the lead time on the project from shovel ready to first oil we would have time to train our pilots.
The Deputy Chair: If a large vessel carrying heavy oil lost power, what is the dynamics of dealing with it in the tides and the prevailing winds of the Bay of Fundy and in the same circumstances in the Strait of Canso?
Capt. Griffiths: Environmental factors in both districts are knowns. If there was an incident in the Bay of Fundy it would automatically be known what the current is at that point and where it is going to go. There is detailed modelling in effect now that can predict where the ship will drift or in the worst case scenario if there was a breach where the oil would go to catch it. There are resources in both Saint John and the Strait of Canso for response as well.
On environmental factors in the Strait of Canso, prevailing wind is also a known. On the day you have the ship it is known. These things are thought about by our pilots on a regular basis. Even before they join the ship they know what the winds are and what to keep in mind. If anything goes wrong where are they going to go? What is their contingency plan? What are plans C and D? That is the case for both districts.
The Deputy Chair: In the Strait of Canso heavy oil is brought in and taken out, right?
Capt. Griffiths: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: Correct me if I am wrong, but in Saint John I am under the assumption that most heavy oil that is in the Bay of Fundy is coming into the Bay of Fundy.
Capt. Griffiths: Yes. It is not really heavy oil either. It is light crude.
The Deputy Chair: Light crude.
Capt. Griffiths: That is correct. In the Strait of Canso oil is both brought in and shipping out. In Saint John it is also shipped out through monobuoy and through the Courtenay Bay facility as well.
The Deputy Chair: I think it is fair and I want you to reflect on this and give us a response. When you look at both of these ports they both have track records of managing the export and the importation of oil and petroleum product.
Capt. Griffiths: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: Do you think that they are both adequately serviced today in terms of pilotage and support systems and in terms of adequately servicing the activity? Would you say they are both more than capable of taking an increase in volume?
Capt. Griffiths: From a pilot's perspective I believe they are.
The Deputy Chair: When we were talking outside did you say you had some more stuff you were going to send out?
Capt. Griffiths: No, this is it. This is everything here.
Senator Mercer: You said about three years to train a pilot. If you hired me tomorrow it would take you three years to train to me. I am a bad example. It would take you a lot longer than that to train me, but if you were to hire some young person it would it take three years?
Capt. Griffiths: It depends on the competencies, where they come from. If you had no command time and you had only been a junior officer, you could train to be a pilot. Of course you could. It would just take longer. If you had command on tankers, container ships, tugs and general cargo, you would think the training should take less.
There are two components to training a pilot. It is local knowledge, first and foremost. The foundation of pilotage is their intimate, in-depth and local knowledge. Second is ship handling every different possible type of ship you can have in each port.
Take our Halifax pilots for instance. On any one day they could handle a container ship in the morning at one dock, a tanker at the second assignment in the morning to an oil facility, and then take a gypsum carrier down to Bedford Basin and dock it at National Gypsum. We get every possible type of ship here. The pilots are unique to that. They have local knowledge and ship expertise.
Senator Mercer: Halifax Harbour is not that complicated but also not that easy to navigate because of the narrows going into Bedford Basin.
Capt. Griffiths: Yes, it is perception as well. You look out to the mouth of the harbour it looks like wide open ocean, but there are many shoals and shallow spots that you can't see. Our pilots know where they are. The shipping lanes are created and designed that way to avoid them. It is not a straight shot out of the harbour like most people would think.
In Saint John it is the same thing. We have tankers going in Courtenay Bay through a defined navigational channel that is dredged every year. We have tankers going on a monobuoy. We have LNG carriers going alongside and we have container ships, cargo ships and salt carriers.
Senator Mercer: In the Port of Saint John there is dredging that happens yearly?
Capt. Griffiths: It is a perpetual schedule and it just keeps going.
Senator Mercer: A perpetual schedule of dredging in the inner harbor.
Capt. Griffiths: In the inner harbour.
Senator Mercer: I don't know if there is any need for dredging in the Strait of Canso.
Capt. Griffiths: No, and there would be no need for dredging in the Bay of Fundy either.
Senator Mercer: But in the harbor.
Capt. Griffiths: In the harbour there has to be, yes.
Senator Mercer: Yes, but going into the Strait of Cans, there is none?
Capt. Griffiths: No.
The Deputy Chair: I have a couple of questions. You are a Coast Guard man.
Capt. Griffiths: In my original days, yes.
The Deputy Chair: Like I mentioned to you I had a three uncles who were captains in the Coast Guard over the years. One of our previous witnesses expressed concerns about the staffing levels and fleet conditions of the Canadian Coast Guard and suggested that addressing these problems would be a preventative measure that improves public confidence in marine safety.
I am just wondering if you could reflect on that, what your assessment of that evaluation is, and what are your recommendations.
Capt. Griffiths: My personal view is outside of the authority's. I would agree with his statement. I believe that resources are thin. The manpower level is down. We co-ordinate closely with Coast Guard, Transport Canada and Canadian Hydrographic Services on many issues across Atlantic Canada that either directly or indirectly impact pilotage.
This community is very tight. I know how much they are stretched. I see personally and professionally how much they are stretched and how few resources they have. I would agree with that statement.
The Deputy Chair: Are there any recommendations or areas that you would identify where they are specifically under sourced? I am just wondering if you could lay them out for us.
Capt. Griffiths: I believe icebreaking capabilities could be a little more robust. I don't believe any fleet of icebreakers could carry us through two winters ago if you remember how bad that was on the Atlantic Coast and up north as well.
The Deputy Chair: Yes.
Capt. Griffiths: But in traditional winter years icebreaking or lack thereof seems to be a sore spot. If somebody wants to kick off a project in a port or a community, to get the resources committed to make that happen are difficult at times. For instance, the Miramichi in New Brunswick is one of our compulsory pilotage areas. We had a meeting yesterday and talked about if that port was to operate year round what it would look like from ice breaking to navigation aids, to bottom survey. It is a tough pull to get all that together for winter navigation because the resources aren't there.
The Deputy Chair: It is interesting that you mention the icebreakers. It has always been a bit of a bone of contention with me. I remember speaking with some of the former directors of the Coast Guard. Is the biggest icebreaker still the Louis S. St-Laurent?
Capt. Griffiths: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: They have it in St. John's now. If you were to centrally locate the icebreaking fleet would you put it in St. John's or in Sydney harbour?
Capt. Griffiths: That is a very good question sir. I don't know that I have an answer for it. It depends on the season. It depends on the prevailing winds and where the ice pressure is the highest.
The Deputy Chair: You mentioned that a couple years ago the fleet was constantly coming from St. John's to go to Sydney harbour to get the ferry out of the ice.
Capt. Griffiths: Yes, that is right.
The Deputy Chair: I was just wondering the cost and the expense. The Louis S. St-Laurent alone is a very expensive vessel to run.
Capt. Griffiths: She is.
The Deputy Chair: Right, so every day it is on the ocean it is costing a lot of money.
Capt. Griffiths: Yes, it certainly is.
The Deputy Chair: It is just my assumption but I think it is a fact based assumption that your icebreaking fleet should be at the head of the icefield.
Capt. Griffiths: You would think. Marine Atlantic plays a key role in the transportation of people and goods to Newfoundland and Labrador. It is imperative that line remain open so I can see the pressures behind that. Although there were days where not only the ferries were stuck, the icebreakers were stuck as well behind the ferries. I remember that as well. To provide pilotage in the ice is very difficult. We can't operate a 60-foot aluminum boat. If you can't operate the Louis S. St-Laurent we haven't got a chance to operate.
The Deputy Chair: No.
Capt. Griffiths: We make concessions with our customers that have alternate boarding points in ice-free waters and we work well with that, but you are right that two years ago the ice edge was all around Sydney and it was non-stop.
The Deputy Chair: Yes, it was.
Capt. Griffiths: Relentless.
The Deputy Chair: Sometimes unfortunately the placement of vessels is left up to politicians.
Capt. Griffiths: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: They don't always make the right decision.
Capt. Griffiths: No.
The Deputy Chair: I have one more question. I am just curious in terms of handling volume and vessels. I have been to the Panama Canal twice. As somebody who grew up on the ocean and beside the ocean whose family sailed for generations, I loved sitting there and watching all the vessels line up. They go as far as the eye can see, lined up to get through the Panama Canal, all out in anchorage.
If you had four or five large vessels — it could be more of course — in the Bay of Fundy lined up to load petroleum out at the floating buoy and you had the same dynamic in the Strait of Canso, what are the overall dynamics of handling a bunch of vessels in the queue?
Capt. Griffiths: The Strait of Canso actually handled more movements than Saint John did many years ago. Several refineries on the East Coast of the U.S. shut down which plummeted traffic in the Strait of Canso. At one point in its heyday the Strait was pulling more ship movements than Saint John was. Where VLCC's were common place in Saint John both in the Strait and in Placentia Bay, we have seen three VLCCs in the last 18 months in Saint John and one in the last 18 months in the Strait of Canso. That has a lot to do with world markets, who is buying oil from where, and economies of scale and such.
Even today, senator, you can look out your window in Saint John and see four or five tankers at anchorage lined up ready to go. As well at Placentia Bay you can look out your window and see half a dozen tankers on the hook or some alongside a terminal transferring oil at any given time. In the Strait of Canso the traffic volume isn't there to see out your window if there are four or five ships lined up, but it has been there before and it can happen again.
The Deputy Chair: Captain Griffiths, I really appreciate your presentation today.
Capt. Griffiths: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Pilotage and the management of the vessels going in and out of harbor s are some things that most people aren't really cognizant of.
Capt. Griffiths: No.
The Deputy Chair: If you grow up in this atmosphere you realize just how essential it is and how important it is.
Capt. Griffiths: To speak on that a little more, you can look out on any coastline in all our provinces on this coast and at any given time see a tanker or more than one tanker. We are used to it. It is familiar territory to us. When I say "us'' I mean Atlantic Canadians. It is part of our way of life.
The Australian Spirit, for instance, barely made national news when it did happen. He was the guy that covered it with me. Not long after that there was a general cargo ship off the coast of B.C. that had no oil as cargo but its own bunkers on board, I think some 20-odd hundred tonnes. The cargo ship was adrift off Haida Gwaii. It made not only national news many nights in a row. It made international news as well.
I believe Atlantic Canadians have a higher tolerance for seeing tanker traffic. It is an everyday thing. We move the most across Canada as I mentioned earlier and I believe the social licence is there for oil transport in Atlantic Canada.
The Deputy Chair: It has been really interesting to have here and be able to pick your brain a bit. Are you familiar with the events surrounding the Arrow when it went aground in Chedabucto Bay and the Kurdistan when it went down off Cape Breton?
Capt. Griffiths: I studied the events in school about the Arrow off Isle Madame, right?
The Deputy Chair: No, it was on the west side.
Capt. Griffiths: It was 1973 or 1978.
The Deputy Chair: 1970.
Capt. Griffiths: In 1970 I was six years away from being born so I can only study it in books. Yes, I do. I believe ECRC has set up quite a robust facility in Mulgrave as a result.
The Deputy Chair: Yes, we were there yesterday.
Capt. Griffiths: Oh, you were. Good.
The Deputy Chair: On behalf of the committee I want to thank you for your presentation.
Capt. Griffiths: Thank you very much for having me.
(The committee adjourned.)